himself furnishes us with an account of that beautiful species of serpent, the boiga, (on Matt. x. 16.) from Cepede's Hist. of oviparous Quadrupeds and Serpents, which tends considerably to establish the point. "The boiga," says Cepede, “is not only to be praised for its beauty, but may be said to fulfil the old maxim of combining the wisdom of the serpent with the harmlessness of the dove." But, if the serpent could not be ranked" at the head of all inferior animals for wisdom and understanding," we conceive it would not militate much against its being the nachash. Something, surely, must be allowed for the consequences of the curse denounced upon it. Animals, and in fact, every terrestrial object, must have undergone an awful and important change since the fall. Are we then to imagine that we shall find the nachash in the same state now, as before that fatal period, except only the bodily change which then took place? Surely not.

On the second characteristio of the nachash, Dr. Clarke observes, "none of them (serpents) did or ever can walk erect. The tales we have had of two-footed and four-footed serpents, are justly exploded by every judicious naturalist, and are utterly unworthy of credit. The very name serpent comes from serpo to creep, and therefore to such it could be neither curse nor punishment to go on their bellies, i. e. to creep on, as they had done from their creation, and must do while their race endures." Surely the Doctor would not deduce an argument that serpents always creeped, from a Latin name! Does the Hebrew, or even the Greek word signify creeping? Certainly not. Then why bring forward a Latin derivation for an argument, as if it were the first name which the animal received?

Neither is there any foundation for asserting that the nachash must have walked erect. The expression by (al gachoncha) upon thy belly (in verse 14) will not bear the sense which is given it by the Doctor, viz. " upon all fours." In the only other place where in (gachon) is used it is plainly distinguished from going upon all fours.. (Lev. xi. 42.)

"Whatsoever goeth upon the belly, fina by (al gachon,-the same expression as in Gen.iii.) and whatsoever goeth upon all four, yaN by (al arba, upon four) or whatsoever hath more feet among all creeping things that creep upon the earth, them ye shall not eat; for they are an abomination." The serpent, then, may have been the nachash, there being no necessity for its previously walking erect, nay, no necessity for its walking upon all fours, as we imagine will be evident from the following judicious note, on this passage by Bishop Patrick: "But what sort it (the serpent) was, is not here expressed: but all agree there is now none like it; the curse of God having degraded it. St. Basil, in his book of Paradise (p. 627) saith, it was not a frightful creature, as it is now, anλa s nas huegos, but mild and gentle. Not crawling and winding about, in a terrible manner, anλos E moda Beßnus, but lofty and going upright upon its feet. Several of the Jews have been of this opinion, and our famous Mr. Mede inclines to it, (Discourse 38. p. 291, &c.) But I take the conjecture of another very learned person, now a bishop of our church, to be far more probable; which I shall endeavour to strengthen. There were (and still are in the eastern and southern parts of the world) serpents having wings and. shining very brightly, like to fire. So we read (Isa. xiv. 29.) of a flying fiery serpent. Which fiery serpents are called seraphim in Numb. xxi. 6, 8, and termed fiery, not merely with respect to their venom, which made sore inflammation in the bodies of those who were bitten by them; but because they appeared shining like fire, when they flew in the air.

Whence seraphim is the name also of the highest sort of angels, (called the angels of the Presence, Isa. vi. 2. 6.) who appeared, I suppose, in some such form with flaming wings. For otherwise, I cannot think serpents would have been honoured as sacred things in so many countries, as we find they anciently were, unless they had been the symbols of angels. The devil, therefore, I conceive, made use of some such serpent (but of more surpassing brightness than any now extant) that he might resemble one of the most illustrious angels, who

appeared sometimes in the like shape. Which moved Eve the more readily to hearken unto the voice of the serpent; taking it to be one of those heavenly seraphim, which she had seen sometime, in such a splendid form, attend upon the divine glory or majesty. For the angels always made a part of the SHECHINAH. And thus one would think Tertullian understood this matter, when he said in his book, De Præscript. Hæret. c. 47, istum fuisse serpentem, cui Eva, ut filio Dei, crediderat ; this was the serpent, to whom Eve gave credit, as to the Son of God.' Which if any one take to be the words of the heretics he is there speaking of; yet those are not, which we find in his book against the Valentinians, (cap. 2,) where he saith the serpent was à primordio Divini imaginis prædo, an usurper of the divine image from the beginning. See Dr. Tennison of Idolatry, p. 365. To which that passage of Epiphanius may be added, who mentions some heretics (who might have some truth among them) that said, the woman listened to the serpent, nas etteiðn ås LOU OSOU, and believed him, or was persuaded by him, as the Son of God. (Hæres. 37. n. 25.) And one would think R. Bechai had this notion in his mind, when he said (upon the 14th verse of this chapter) this is the secret (or mystery) of the Holy Language, that a serpent is called SARAPH, as an angel is called SARAPH. For which he quotes the forenamed place, (Num. xxi. 6.) and then adds, the Scriptures call angels SERAPHIM, because they were the offspring of this old serpent. Which can have no meaning, I think, but this; that the devil (whom St. John calls the old serpent, Rev. xii. 9.) in this serpent here spoken of, counterfeited a glorious seraphim, and thereby seduced Eve to give credit to him."

On the third and fourth characteristic of the nachash, Dr. Clarke observes, "They (serpents) have no organs of speech, or any kind of articulate sound; they can only hiss. It is true that an ass, by miraculous influence, may speak ; but it is not to be supposed that there was any miraculous interference here. GOD did not qualify this creature with speech for the occasion, and it is not intimated that there was any other agent, that did it on the contrary, the text intimates that

:

speech and reason were natural to the nachash; and is it not in reference to this, the inspired penman says, ' Now the nachash was more wise or intelligent than all the beasts of the field which the Lord God had made." We confess we cannot perceive that "the text intimates that speech and reason were natural to the nachash; and though "it is not intimated that there was any other agent" in this passage, yet it certainly has been always so understood, not only by Christians but by Jews; and we have it from infallible authority that it was the old serpent, the devil, who assumed the form of the nachash for this truly diabolical purpose. "And, as a man possessed with an evil spirit, all the works he doeth, and all the words that he speaketh, are not, but by reason of the evil spirit that is within him; so the serpent, all the works that he did, and all the words that he spake, he spake not, neither did, but by reason of the devil."-(Pirke R. Eliezer, cap. 13.) This is the language of a Jew, and with it his brethren agree, though frequently mixing much fable with their opinions. In the Little Yalkut Rubeni (Num. 3, under the title Sammael, out of Zohar) is the following: "Before the first man had sinned, Sammael (i. e. the devil) was one of the seraphim, and had six wings, but he fell off from the Lord, &c. But when he had seduced Adam to transgress, he was cast out of heaven, as we read in Yalkut Shimeoni (fol. 8. Col. 4. N. 27.) to the following effect: he (namely God) set them all three before him, and pronounced upon them a sentence of nine curses and of death; and cast Sammael, with all his host, from his place of glory, and out of heaven; and cut off the serpent's feet; and added this to her punishment, that once in every seven years, she should, with great pain to herself, be stript of her skin." in Sepher habba hir (parasha Bereshith, out of Midrash Ruth) "When the holy and blessed God made man, he formed him out of the ground of the temple, and having set him upon his legs, all the creation came to worship, or do homage to him (the man.) And what did the holy and blessed God then? He took him from the place and set him in Paradise, and made him ten nuptial heavens, like those he will hereafter prepare in Pa

6

So

Though we do not object against his conclusions, "because apparently derived from an Arabic word," but because we have seen that the argument will apply with equal force in favour of the serpent being the nachash; yet we will follow the course which the Doctor has prescribed. Having, then, duly considered the import of the Hebrew root from which w (nachash) is derived, we conceive that the serpent has greater claims to be so called than any other animal. "These animals," observes Parkhurst," are so remarkable for sharply eyeing objects, that a serpent's eye (serpentis oculis, opis qua.) became a proverb among the Greeks and Romans, who applied it to those who view things sharply or acutely. And etymological writers derive the Greek sçɑxwv a dragon (a kind of serpent) from deguei to view, behold, and op a serpent, from ozroquai to see. (See Martinii Lexic. Etymol. in Draco.) An ingenious writer, speaking of the supposed fascination in the rattle-snake's eye, says, it is perhaps more universal among the poisonous serpents than is supposed: for our common viper has it.' (Watson's Animal World Displayed, p. 284.)" Is not then nachash a parallel word with ops? And have not the LXX very properly so translated it? But there is still another argument which is produced in favour of the nachash being an ape. It is that the nachash is compared to a babbler, in the following passage of Ecclesiastes, (chap. x. 11.)

οφις

οπτομαι

"Surely the serpent (nachash) will bite without inchantment;
And a babbler is no better.

But surely it must be obvious to every one, that the comparison is not between the babbling of the nachash and that of the babbler; but between the natural disposition of the one to bite, and of the other to babble. Surely the nachash will bite without inchantment (or rather charming, for that is the proper meaning of win (lachash) that is, it is its natural propensity so to do; and a babbler is no better, it is as natural for him to babble as it is for the nachash to bite. This argument, then, like riches, has made unto itself wings and flown away. But before dismissing this passage, we would observe, that it